lol - for real? i guess you didnt bother looking at those links i provided or you're one of those that excuses bad behaviour as long as it benefits your interests types...
don't you tell me what behavior I excuse.
Lousy, rotten things have been said about both candidates. And I've denounced on this blog many of rotten things said about Hillary by the media and other bloggers.
your comment was "America will elect a woman President when the right candidate comes along."
this suggests that the disgusting treatment i showed is okay because its HRC who you clearly oppose.
whatever.
excuse or dont. its up to you.
Actually, it doesn't. Despite the vile media treatment, if Clinton hadn't run a shoddy campaign, she would be the next president of the US. This doesn't excuse the sexist and misogynist crap from the media (nor does it excuse the crap from Obama ("claws come out", "periodically", or "strident" in the post NC/IN primary press release), but it does mean that the US will eventually elect a woman president, we would have this year, if not for Obama's excellent campaign and Clinton's sloppy campaign.
It is conceivable that media sexism cost Clinton the margin of victory (although media racism has been nearly as bad, if different, racism and sexism operate in different manners in the US), but they didn't do Clinton as much harm as Mark Penn's incompetence. If she'd recognized his big state strategy for the disaster it turned out to be, she'd be the next president.
again - no where in this post do i discuss the primary, HRC or BO's campaign strategy, math, superdelegtes etc.
Seriously,
Where do you get off claiming that this country isn't ready or that Hillary has to be the chosen one.
Tell me which women you have voted into public office and we can compare notes.
I've voted for Ann Richards, Anne Eshoo, Boxer and Feinstein. Ann Richards was as feisty a governor as you could ever hope for (especially with her Bush "born with a silver spoon in his mouth" comment).
Don't pretend that just because your candidate ran a lousy campaign and ruined her own chances that she ruined it for all the really smart women in my generation.
Hillary wasn't a Rhodes Scholar. One of my female classmates in undergrad was (and she was damn impressive) and I know two more female Rhodes Scholars. Trust me, the US isn't hurting for accomplished women 40 and under.
Answer the question about why our daughters should weep when there are plenty of strong female candidates out there.
because our society has made sexism permissible. this is not about having strong candidates, rather how this one was treated by the media.
Sorry if I was unclear, I'm disagreeing with you disagreeing with a commenter about whether the vile media bias that you have been documenting means that we won't have a female president in the near future (next two decades). I think that Clinton, despite the vile media treatment, has demonstrated that it is possible for a woman to run a presidential campaign that will be treated seriously, and that misogyny and sexism are not so crippling that it would be impossible for a strong female candidate to win. I don't mean that Clinton isn't a strong candidate, obviously she is, and she came very close to winning.
I have no disagreement with your original post.
